4.  The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in Dortmund.
5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
6.  In 1992 the applicant and her husband transferred the ownership of a flat to the applicant's niece. In the notarial deed they agreed upon a life annuity in the amount of 400 German marks (DEM) and a “purchase price” of DEM 53,000. Prior to the drawing up of the notarial deed both parties had moreover agreed that the niece was not entitled to sell the flat to a third party.
7.  In 1995, after the parties' relationship had deteriorated, the applicant's niece sold the flat. In March 1996 the applicant and her husband therefore revoked the transfer of ownership, which they had considered a gift, on account of the recipient's gross ingratitude.
8.  On 9 January 1997 the applicant and her husband introduced a claim against the niece with the Dortmund Regional Court for the payment of DEM 137,000.
9.  At a hearing of 18 April 1997, after the niece had challenged the court's competence to examine the case, the case was transferred to the Hagen Regional Court, which informed the parties that they had to be represented by a lawyer admitted to plead before the court (as foreseen in section 78 of the Code of Civil Procedure at the relevant time; see below).
10.  On 24 November 1997 the lawyer who had been appointed by the applicant and her husband addressed the court for the first time. The Regional Court then scheduled a hearing for 4 February 1998.
11.  On 4 March 1998, following that hearing, the court decided that the value of the flat was to be evaluated by an expert.
12.  On 6 November 1998, following the submission of further information by the parties requested by the expert and an inspection of the property, the expert submitted the report.
13.  After having received the parties' submissions on this report, the court scheduled a hearing for 24 February 1999. It also summoned the expert. On account of his absence, the hearing had to be postponed to 24 March 1999.
14.  On 28 April 1999 the Hagen Regional Court decided that the niece was to pay the applicant and her husband the amount of DEM 81,479.34. It dismissed the remainder of the claim.
15.  On 4 June 1999 the niece appealed. In September 1999, following an extension of the time-limit, she filed her pleadings.
16.  On 24 September 1999 the Hamm Court of Appeal – with the help of a special body at the Court of Appeal entrusted with the organisation of the hearings – scheduled a hearing for 18 February 2000. This was the first date at which both parties' representatives had been able to attend. It also set the applicant and her husband a deadline for their observations.
17.  In January 2000 the applicant and her husband lodged a cross-appeal (Anschlußberufung).
18.  At the hearing of 18 February 2000 the parties concluded a friendly settlement.
19.  On 5 April 2000 the niece revoked the friendly settlement.
20.  On 26 April 2000 the Hamm Court of Appeal therefore scheduled a new hearing for 25 August 2000. Again, no previous hearing date at which both parties' representatives could attend had been found. Due to the absence of a witness summoned at the request of the applicant and her husband, it had to be postponed to 21 November 2000.
21.  At the hearing the court proposed a settlement to the parties. On 28 December 2000 the applicant and her husband refused to give their consent.
22.  On 19 January 2001 the court therefore scheduled another hearing for 17 August 2001. Again, this had been the first date at which the parties' representatives were able to attend. In April 2001, on account of the absence of a witness named by the applicant and her husband, the hearing had to be rescheduled for 20 November 2001. Further submissions by both parties, partly requested by the court, followed.
23.  At the hearing the court decided to obtain an expert opinion on the value of the life annuity. In January 2002, after the applicant had paid the requisite advance, the court commissioned the expert.
24.  On 31 May 2002 the expert submitted his report.
25.  On 28 June 2002 the court scheduled a hearing for 5 November 2002. Again, an earlier date had been impossible to arrange. Further submissions by the parties and a supplementary statement by the expert followed.
26.  On 5 November 2002 the Hamm Court of Appeal dismissed the niece's appeal.
27.  On 8 January 2003 the niece lodged an appeal against the refusal for leave to appeal. On 19 May 2003, following an extension of the time-limit, she reasoned her appeal.
28.   On 3 December 2003 the applicant and her husband submitted observations they had undertaken to make in June.
29.  On 17 February 2004 the Federal Court of Justice granted leave to appeal.
30.  In June 2004 a conciliation hearing (Güteverhandlung) took place.
31.  On 14 December 2004 the Federal Court of Justice quashed the judgment of 5 November 2002 and referred the matter back to the Hamm Court of Appeal. It held that while the transfer had rightly been considered a partial gift, the Hamm Court of Appeal had failed to establish that the niece was guilty of gross ingratitude.
32.  On 25 February 2005 the Hamm Court of Appeal requested the parties to file their submissions on the question of gross ingratitude, which they did in April 2005.
33.  On 3 May 2005 it scheduled a hearing for 31 May 2005. On that day the parties reached a friendly settlement.
34.  On 2 June 2005 the applicant and her husband revoked the friendly settlement.
35.  On 30 August 2005 the Hamm Court of Appeal partly quashed the judgment of the Hagen Regional Court of 28 April 1999 and dismissed the applicant and her husband's claim. It held that the applicant's niece had not acted in gross ingratitude when selling the flat. It also refused leave to appeal on points of law.
36.  In October 2005 and January 2006 the applicant and her husband reasoned their request for leave to appeal.
37.  In February and March 2006 the niece replied.
38.  On 13 June 2006 the Federal Court of Justice refused leave to appeal on points of law.